Temple/Nova

[Jerry1714]

It is not a 1 to 1 correlation.
You are speaking in Utopian absolutes. Not current landscape as it stands in today's realities. Read Larry Brown's comments from yesterday.
Villanova losing to Oklahoma early in the year doesnt make a blip on anyone's radar or drag down the Big East in perception or stature. That league is having a pretty decent year as much as I hate to admit it. Multiple teams in top 10 at times this year, etc.....

Temple getting housed while sitting at the top of the AAC this late in the year is a very bad look for a league that already is laughed out of every serious basketball discussion. I mean the other top 3 teams in the AAC cant beat Temple but Temple cant stay on the court with Nova? Fair or not its the way it is and we live in that world.

I understand what you are saying, and do not disagree with it, but my point was that UConn's NCAAT position did not change last night because Temple lost to Nova.

 

[August_West]

I understand what you are saying, and do not disagree with it, but my point was that UConn's NCAAT position did not change last night because Temple lost to Nova.

your keyword(s) is "last night" No it did not change UConn's position "last night" Agreed. It may change UConn's position on selection Sunday though.

 

[HooperScooper]

ESPN kept showing us as a 10 seed last night. Either way if we lose two more in the regular season we are going to be sweating unless we win the AAC tournament.

Funny you mention that. On Monday night I was watching the Kansas-OK St. game and they had a graphic of all of Lunardi's Bracketology 8-9 games. UConn wasn't on there. I thought that was strange since earlier in the day I saw his updated Bracketology and UConn was a 9 seed playing Michigan. I figured maybe they weren't using the one that was updated Monday morning. So I checked and the last Bracketology updated before that was February 11. And UConn was an 8 seed in that one playing Pitt. So what were they using for the graphic? It specifically said Lunardi's Bracketology on the top of the graphic. Do they just make stuff up to promote the ACC and Big Ten as much as possible?!

 

[TRest]

I understand what you are saying, and do not disagree with it, but my point was that UConn's NCAAT position did not change last night because Temple lost to Nova.

Anyone who doesn't think Selection Sunday may be brutal to us is ignoring the past couple of years. This league gets zero respect.

 

[August_West]

Anyone who doesn't think Selection Sunday may be brutal to us is ignoring the past couple of years. This league gets zero respect.

I really fear people are in for a Rude awakening. I feel that people think that what happened to other AAC teams the last couple years can't happen to UConn because we are UConn and we are a bigger "brand" than anything else in the AAC, and we are recent 2 time title winners...yada yada yada.

Unfortunately my gut tells me none of that matters. We will get just as screwed as any other AAC team if we limp in the selection room with a Bubble-y resume.

We just have to win games like tonight. Just win and we dont worry. I feel very ill at ease getting the nod over other bubble teams out of this conference.

 

[Tdaley]

We are in the tournament as of today. At the end of the season that may not be true if we lose most of our remaining games. I think 22 wins is the number we need to get to including the AAC tournament. Any number less than 22 wins will make me feel uncomfortable on selection Sunday.

 

[ucp990411]

Thank you August - West for agreeing. Our conference gets no respect and frankly, does not deserve any. And our out of conference schedule was not strong enough to make up for our pathetic conference. How many quality wins do we have? 4?

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Look at the schedule
Beating SMU tonight it pretty much a must win.
Even with that win we must beat Houston,USF,and UCF
Even with road losses to SMU and Cinncy. I believe we're in good shape.
Lose tonight and we have to win at SMU, even a Cinncy win won't help that's a tall order.

Lose tonight and our only hope is winning the AAC .

I had a strange thought , SMU is in a situation were there is a slight financial benifit to them, to lose to UConn. They would normally share in NCAA money earned by every AAC schools unless that's part of the penalty.

 

[tcf15]

Thank you August - West for agreeing. Our conference gets no respect and frankly, does not deserve any. And our out of conference schedule was not strong enough to make up for our pathetic conference. How many quality wins do we have? 4?

Hey man, a bit off topic, but I sent you a message earlier - you still have those UConn VHS tapes? I stumbled across a thread from a long time ago where you said you had tapes from 93/94 to 05/06. Let me know.

 

[BUHusky]

Look at the schedule
Beating SMU tonight it pretty much a must win.
Even with that win we must beat Houston,USF,and UCF
Even with road losses to SMU and Cinncy. I believe we're in good shape.
Lose tonight and we have to win at SMU, even a Cinncy win won't help that's a tall order.

Lose tonight and our only hope is winning the AAC .

I had a strange thought , SMU is in a situation were there is a slight financial benifit to them, to lose to UConn. They would normally share in NCAA money earned by every AAC schools unless that's part of the penalty.

Seriously?

This thread has reached peak Boneyard. Time to nuke it.

 

[Jerry1714]

Thank you August - West for agreeing. Our conference gets no respect and frankly, does not deserve any. And our out of conference schedule was not strong enough to make up for our pathetic conference. How many quality wins do we have? 4?

He did not agree with you

 

[Jerry1714]

I really fear people are in for a Rude awakening. I feel that people think that what happened to other AAC teams the last couple years can't happen to UConn because we are UConn and we are a bigger "brand" than anything else in the AAC, and we are recent 2 time title winners...yada yada yada.

Unfortunately my gut tells me none of that matters. We will get just as screwed as any other AAC team if we limp in the selection room with a Bubble-y resume.

We just have to win games like tonight. Just win and we dont worry. I feel very ill at ease getting the nod over other bubble teams out of this conference.

Temple did not get in last year and had a case I guess, their Kenpom was 57 and no at large team had a worse Kenpom then them last year, and their BPI was 63, again worse than any at large team. So them not getting in was in line with their metrics. Cincy with 10 losses and RPI 46 and Kenpom 34 was definitely not slighted on their seed, an 8. SMU I agree was poorly seeded last year.

I really think the whole ACC got royally screwed last year is very overblown.

 

[August_West]

Temple did not get in last year and had a case I guess, their Kenpom was 57 and no at large team had a worse Kenpom then them last year, and their BPI was 63, again worse than any at large team. So them not getting in was in line with their metrics. Cincy with 10 losses and RPI 46 and Kenpom 34 was definitely not slighted on their seed, an 8. SMU I agree was poorly seeded last year.

I really think the whole ACC got royally screwed last year is very overblown.

Its two years.

 

[Jerry1714]

Its two years.

Well since it was not last year, it can only be 1 year, so for 2014:

Louisville - 4 seed - RPI 19, Kenpom 3, BPI 3 - Awful seed by the metrics, in line with RPI
Cincy - 5 seed - RPI 20 - Kenpom 25, BPI 24 - Seed in line with all the number
UConn - 7 seed - RPI 23 - Kenpom 26, BPI 18 - Very bad seed, should have been a 5
Memphis - 8 seed - RPI 34 - Kenpom 46, BPI 43 - Seed may be a little generous, in line with RPI but not metrics
SMU - Out - RPI 53 - Kenpom 64, BPI 31 - BPI is only metric supporting their inclusion.

So 2 seeds were poorly seeded that year and 3 were seeded properly, so in the last two years, 3 teams were seeded poorly and 5 were seeded properly.

I do not think any of the poorly seeded teams were egregious mistakes (except maybe UConn but that worked out OK), and when you take into account all the factors of seeding (location, conferences matching up, ect.) it is not as bad people make it out to be and no team has been left that out that should definitely been in he tournament.

Point is if UConn has the numbers to be in they will be in.

 

[August_West]

Well since it was not last year, it can only be 1 year, so for 2014:

Louisville - 4 seed - RPI 19, Kenpom 3, BPI 3 - Awful seed by the metrics, in line with RPI
Cincy - 5 seed - RPI 20 - Kenpom 25, BPI 24 - Seed in line with all the number
UConn - 7 seed - RPI 23 - Kenpom 26, BPI 18 - Very bad seed, should have been a 5
Memphis - 8 seed - RPI 34 - Kenpom 46, BPI 43 - Seed may be a little generous, in line with RPI but not metrics
SMU - Out - RPI 53 - Kenpom 64, BPI 31 - BPI is only metric supporting their inclusion.

So 2 seeds were poorly seeded that year and 3 were seeded properly, so in the last two years, 3 teams were seeded poorly and 5 were seeded properly.

I do not think any of the poorly seeded teams were egregious mistakes (except maybe UConn but that worked out OK), and when you take into account all the factors of seeding (location, conferences matching up, ect.) it is not as bad people make it out to be and no team has been left that out that should definitely been in he tournament.

Point is if UConn has the numbers to be in they will be in.

But you used the kenPom and BPI number to validate Temples exclusion last year, so if we are going to do that then 2 years ago Lousiville was AT WORST a two (and by BPI and KenPom a 1) 2 years ago and got a Four seed. UConn as you admitted was a 5 and got a 7. Forget that it worked out (though ecstatic that it did). SMU should have been in. Even more than Temple last year.

I would like to see the number of the last 4 in who got in over SMU 2 years ago. There was a ton of talking head squawking about that. and they don't squawk about the AAC unless its egregious.

 

[tzznandrew]

Well since it was not last year, it can only be 1 year, so for 2014:

Louisville - 4 seed - RPI 19, Kenpom 3, BPI 3 - Awful seed by the metrics, in line with RPI
Cincy - 5 seed - RPI 20 - Kenpom 25, BPI 24 - Seed in line with all the number
UConn - 7 seed - RPI 23 - Kenpom 26, BPI 18 - Very bad seed, should have been a 5
Memphis - 8 seed - RPI 34 - Kenpom 46, BPI 43 - Seed may be a little generous, in line with RPI but not metrics
SMU - Out - RPI 53 - Kenpom 64, BPI 31 - BPI is only metric supporting their inclusion.

So 2 seeds were poorly seeded that year and 3 were seeded properly, so in the last two years, 3 teams were seeded poorly and 5 were seeded properly.

I do not think any of the poorly seeded teams were egregious mistakes (except maybe UConn but that worked out OK), and when you take into account all the factors of seeding (location, conferences matching up, ect.) it is not as bad people make it out to be and no team has been left that out that should definitely been in he tournament.

Point is if UConn has the numbers to be in they will be in.

Louisville was on a tear, and their seed was really shocking at the time. SMU lost a brutal game against Houston in the AAC tournament, and so probably didn't deserve it that year. UConn was also hurt by their seed, but like you said, it didn't matter in the end.

I don't know how to check non-end-of season KenPom, but SMU was also poorly treated last year by most people's thoughts:

SMU - 6 seed - RPI 12 - BPI 24

When you look at it, you think they probably should have been a 4 or so, but it is in line with the advanced metrics.

End of story here is that they seem to pick and choose the metric, and so we can't have an RPI in the 40s.

 

[Jerry1714]

But you used the kenPom and BPI number to validate Temples exclusion last year, so if we are going to do that then 2 years ago Lousiville was AT WORST a two (and by BPI and KenPom a 1) 2 years ago and got a Four seed. UConn as you admitted was a 5 and got a 7. Forget that it worked out (though ecstatic that it did). SMU should have been in. Even more than Temple last year.

I would like to see the number of the last 4 in who got in over SMU 2 years ago. There was a ton of talking head squawking about that. and they don't squawk about the AAC unless its egregious.

Two years ago:
SMU - Out - RPI 53 - Kenpom 64, BPI 31
Last four in:
Iowa - RPI 55 - Kenpom 24, BPI 26 - Iowa deserved it over SMU
Tenn - RPI 40 - Kenpom 14, BPI 25 - No debate Tenn deserved it over SMU
Xavier - RPI 47 - Kenpom 43, BPI 54 - X had better RPI and Kenpom - big BPI difference between the 2
NC State - RPI 54 - Kenpom 67, BPI 61 - Here is the only case to be made, but SMU played the 135th SOS as opposed to NC State's 23rd SOS

No way it can be considered egregious, it probably came down to 2 teams, NC State and SMU, and outside of BPI and SOS the numbers are identical.

And I agreed Lvill should have been seeded better that year, never disputed that.

 

[August_West]

Two years ago:
SMU - Out - RPI 53 - Kenpom 64, BPI 31
Last four in:
Iowa - RPI 55 - Kenpom 24, BPI 26 - Iowa deserved it over SMU
Tenn - RPI 40 - Kenpom 14, BPI 25 - No debate Tenn deserved it over SMU
Xavier - RPI 47 - Kenpom 43, BPI 54 - X had better RPI and Kenpom - big BPI difference between the 2
NC State - RPI 54 - Kenpom 67, BPI 61 - Here is the only case to be made, but SMU played the 135th SOS as opposed to NC State's 23rd SOS

No way it can be considered egregious, it probably came down to 2 teams, NC State and SMU, and outside of BPI and SOS the numbers are identical.

And I agreed Lvill should have been seeded better that year, never disputed that.

thanks for the legwork.
Andrew said it more succinctly than I ever can. We can't be in a position where the committee can be arbitrary with us.